Must Read Article on NFL Team Makeup and Winning

[kccrow]

Its a long article, not going to post it all. It is very well written and these guys know what they are talking about. Important section late in the article that shows Sac is right in many respects on his thought process. Critical reasoning on why giving Houston a huge contract over retaining Hudson isn't necessarily a smart move. If this has been posted and I didn't see it, well slap me.

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com...-in-todays-nfl

[O.city]

Contradicts himself in regards to the QB. Get a great one, but don't overpay him?

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by O.city

Contradicts himself in regards to the QB. Get a great one, but don't overpay him?

I thought he would have been better to talk in terms of % of cap.

He's saying that no QB making over 16 million per had ever won the SB up until that point. If you look at the 2014 cap, that would have been 12%. I think if you go forward, % of cap would be better to use as a number. I'd have to dig to get the % of cap for all QBs, say in the past 10 years, but it's probably close to that.

Brady might have broken that mould, not sure, didn't check. I think the premise is important though: Don't hamstring your franchise by overpaying certain positions because you won't be solid enough elsewhere to be competitive.

[O.city]

In the end, results are all that counts. Paying players elite money isn't a problem if they're producing elite results.

After that, it's on the front office to put good players around those guys.

[kccrow]

Arguably, paying players elite money is counter to winning. You want as many good players as you can get. If you are signing elite players, you have to suffer somewhere for it. You have to counter the elite salary with a minimum salary. That's the point of the entire article. And if you spend big money, it can't be some exorbitant, league-leading salary.

Part of that is drafting to replace high salary players, which Dorsey has shown he'll do. Not only is carrying several high salaries counterproductive, those high salary guys are usually nearing the end of their careers. KC, though, has a few players that will command high salaries that are just entering their prime years. They have to be careful which ones they offer that big money to and which ones they let walk away.

The cap will increase this year to between 140 and 143 million. Unless revenues increase significantly again, there is no guarantee it'll make another 10 million jump like it has done the past 4 seasons. With Poe on the horizon too, KC is in a difficult spot. Poe will easily become the highest paid NT in the NFL, whether that is in KC or elsewhere, and that means it will be higher than the 8.8 million per Rubin signed for with Cleveland. Given his skill set, I'd bank on closer to 12-13 million per, in line with Ngata and Suh contracts.

[O.city]

Again, it's about production.

Paying elite level money to players who give you elite play isn't a Problem. Look at Seattle. They're paying Earl Thomas, Sherman etc big money, but they're getting results.

[Nightfyre]

It was a good read, but managing the salary cap should be easy. At any given time, half of a teams roster should be rookie contracts. Then you simply have to determine if a players production over a replacement is worth the cost. Houston, for example, probably provided 17 more sacks, above average coverage and excellent run support than a replacement at his position, which is definitely worth paying for, imo.

[Direckshun]

I think the article drastically undervalues passrushing talent. And the "it's good to have an amazing QB but not pay him too much" was so no-duh-stupid I could kill kccrow's hamster over it.

Other than that, it was pretty solid read.

[Chiefnj2]

You need an elite QB, or QB that can play at an elite level in the postseason.

You need to protect that QB and be able to rush the other QB. After that, it's up to your own system.

Trying to compare the different SB contenders over the last decade is just fruitless. They are all so different. Fans need to stop wanting to try to "copy" the latest trend.

[RealSNR]

Here's why Sac is wrong regarding Houston:

The Seahawks are built the way they are because Bruce Irvin and Cliff Avril are not Justin Houston. They don't have a Justin Houston. If they did, you bet your ass they would work to keep him around.

Because he's not there, they've filled out the rest of their defense to make it far more balanced (they are capable of doing this because they've NAILED several drafts in a row). This works for them.

The Chiefs are not that gifted. We also run a different scheme. We also have Houston. Yet our defenses are comparable (I'd still take the Seahawks D, obviously, but we're both top 10 defenses).

It makes sense, then, that we need to pay Houston, because that one player is so much more responsible for our success than any one player in the Seahawks' front 7.

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by SNR

Here's why Sac is wrong regarding Houston:

The Seahawks are built the way they are because Bruce Irvin and Cliff Avril are not Justin Houston. They don't have a Justin Houston. If they did, you bet your ass they would work to keep him around.

Because he's not there, they've filled out the rest of their defense to make it far more balanced (they are capable of doing this because they've NAILED several drafts in a row). This works for them.

The Chiefs are not that gifted. We also run a different scheme. We also have Houston. Yet our defenses are comparable (I'd still take the Seahawks D, obviously, but we're both top 10 defenses).

It makes sense, then, that we need to pay Houston, because that one player is so much more responsible for our success than any one player in the Seahawks' front 7.

Sure he is.

The problem with one guy being a 99%'er is that opposing offenses can game plan for one guy.

With a line full of 70%'ers, you can't game plan for it and you have to account for the entire defensive line versus one guy.

With the talent level of the players in the NFL being what it is today versus 15 years ago, you can't just sink all of your defensive money into a single rush end or your offensive money outside of QB into the left tackle. You've got to spread it out. Guys are far too talented and athletic in the modern NFL to simply have one guy on each line take up the potential talent/money pool because you will have teams exploiting the other, lesser talents elsewhere.

The Chiefs have been able to get away with Houston kicking ass like he has because of the rookie contract and that allows the team to keep guys like Hali (who is very much a boon to the production of Houston), Johnson, Berry, etc.

The Chiefs are going to be pretty much screwed over the next two seasons with both Poe and Houston commanding #1 level positional money. Most likely, they will have to make a choice as paying both will absolutely cripple the team. Shame, because it's nice to see that homegrown talent turn into elite (Pioli did a couple of things right apparently with Houston, Poe and Hudson), but in the modern NFL it's neigh impossible to have two #1 talents on the same side of the ball - especially ones just coming into their prime and coming off their rookie deals.

I also think that it's imperative to resign Hudson, because he's also at that same level at his position, but, again, if he's wanting to be paid as the highest center in the league...eh...I don't know about that either.

I think it's easier to replace a rush end than it is a NT or C.

You just hope Dorsey drafts right and is able to build an entire team comprised of 70%'ers that can absorb the loss of a Poe or Houston.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I think the article drastically undervalues passrushing talent. And the "it's good to have an amazing QB but not pay him too much" was so no-duh-stupid I could kill kccrow's hamster over it.

Other than that, it was pretty solid read.

1. Leave my ****ing hamster out of this.

2. It does undervalue pass rush talent. I think I've posted on ANY/A before, but if not, look at that model and the stats. It's well based in long-term data.

In a nutshell, ANY/A says that the team that is most efficient passing the football will win 80% of the time. How a team goes about being most efficient is largely scheme dependent, but there are going to be two glaring staples: QB and Offensive Line.

Obviously, to keep a team from being more efficient, there are also two staples: Pass Rush and Coverage Players.

Someone has to get through that offensive line and disrupt the QB, because sacks factor into ANY/A. Also, pressure causes interceptions and incompletions that weigh heavily in ANY/A.

I say coverage players because of the NFL's emphasis in today's game on movement players, or TEs and RBs in space. You need solid CBs, but you need players on the roster that can cover at TE or RB out in space. Ideally, you have one at each level: linebacker and safety. The Chiefs were blessed to have Derrick Johnson and Eric Berry to fill that void in the past. Last season we saw Ron Parker and Husain Abdullah step up to the task.

I don't believe you really need bonafide run stoppers anymore. I think you need a few guys that are solid enough in that area to help restrict play action. Play action often aids in increasing ANY/A by giving the QB easier targets.

Why is Justin Houston so valuable to this model? He disrupts the QB at an alarming rate. Why is Dontari Poe so valuable to this model? Because he disrupts the QB fairly well for his position and he allows others to disrupt the QB.

All this to say, get solid coverage personnel and retain your most disruptive players. Justin Houston absolutely should be retained.

[milkman]

The conclusions this person drew from his research are flawed.

The Packers won a SB with a mediocre O-Line..
The Giants won 2 SBs with a mediocre secondary.
The Seahawks won a SB with run oriented offense.

You could look at each of the last 10-15 winners and find other examples that discredit his conclusions.

The only things that almost all of the teams of the last 10-15 years really had in common were a franchise QB and at least 2 playmakers or difference makers on the defefense.

[RunKC]

#1 is relationship between the GM and coach. That comes before everything.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by milkman

The conclusions this person drew from his research are flawed.

The Packers won a SB with a mediocre O-Line..
The Giants won 2 SBs with a mediocre secondary.
The Seahawks won a SB with run oriented offense.

You could look at each of the last 10-15 winners and find other examples that discredit his conclusions.

The only things that almost all of the teams of the last 10-15 years really had in common were a franchise QB and at least 2 playmakers or difference makers on the defefense.

Yeah, but these are sort of the exception rather than the rule. The mediocre OLine was balanced out by THE best QB in football. The Giants did have a pretty average secondary at best, but had an absurd front four, and let's face it, they were lucky to win those two SBs. I'm not just talking about a couple plays in the SB, I mean they squeaked into the playoffs. In the non-SB winning years, those teams didn't do terribly well. I wouldn't look at the Giants and try to build a SB contender there. They don't seem to be a very good example of sustained success, to be honest.

Seahawks had an absurd defense, and a very good QB who could both run and pass and took up very little cap space.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, but the point here is to identify some trends or approaches that consistently work. And you need to say more than "go get a great QB" because, duh.